Tom,

Your idea is manifestly useless and clearly totally impractical - I'm
amazed that you would even consider raising it on such a high tech
discussion list.
To assist you in presenting more useful and appropriate ideas in
future I 've provided the following guidelines although these should
have been obvious to you immediately -

- No way to incorporate a PIC.
- No way to even incorporate some other inferior processor.
- Too cheap.
- Uses parts which can be made from low tech materials using
non-state-of-the-art fabrication equipment.
- Runs the risk of providing jobs for lesser skilled workers AND in
higher quantities than the alternatives AND (paradoxically) also
allowing a greater degree of craftsmanship in the final design. This
sets a dangerous and retro-gressive precedent for other designs.
- More liable to be maintained and repaired (AND at lower cost) by
end users than existing solution.
- Not subject to EMC compliance considerations so no prospect for
skim off by test houses, equipment manufacturers, regulatory
authorities, directive writers, and downstream consultants.
- Ease of infinitely variable rate of deployment and positioning not
consistent with features of system it is replacing.
- When 2 or more parties are involved in deployment and obstruction
there is no means of ensuring that latter party(s) are ISO9000 (or
equivalent) certified or adequately trained - while this may have
minimal effect on the outcomes experienced it will make guaranteed
traceability of the sources of the outcome a nightmare.
- You have specified a clockwise rotary motion to move the window up
which is liable to lead to a 50% failure rate to achieve a
satisfactory initial outcome for inexperienced users - while this is
liable to prove a boon to persons in the legal profession due to the
subsequent experience of confusion, dissatisfaction and reduction of
enjoyment of life experienced by their son to be clients it would
lead to a reduction of the availability of such persons in other
areas of useful litigation such as pain and injury caused by pouring
hot coffee into one's own lap while at a restaurant (I'm not making
this up!).
- Similar arguments apply to that above for the proposed
counter-clockwise rotary motion and subsequent action.
-As all digits on a clock manifestly change to their subsequent
states by appearing or disappearing essentially instantaneously  how
is it possible that there can be any relevant motion implied?
- Reliance on pounding on windows is liable to lead to otherwise
unnecessary breakage, damage and more pain, injury and litigious
actions (see above).
- Terms such as "crank" and "gear" are clearly inappropriate for use
in a PICLIST posting without at minimum prefacing the subject line
with [OT][Luddite] - please comply in future.




RM


From: Tom Handley <thandley@TELEPORT.COM>

>   I've been giving this whole issue of car window safety a great
deal of
>thought and I came up with an idea. What if you had the window
mounted to a
>vertical channel with teeth that interfaced with a rotary gear.
Instead of
>the standard methods using motors and sensing, suppose you added a
crank
>with a knob. I know this sounds radical but bear with me for a
moment.
>Basically, you apply a clockwise rotary (cranking) motion to move
the window
>up and a counterclockwise motion to move the window down. If you
>accidentally stuck your hand in the window while cranking it up, you
would
>notice the pain and stop cranking. I know what you're thinking;
"what if
>someone else had their hand stuck in the window?". Well, you would
probably
>hear a scream or a loud, pounding, noise on the window. Anyway, I
just
>thought I would share my years of expertise on this problem ;-)